Your browser does not seem to support JavaScript. As a result, your viewing experience will be diminished, and you have been placed in read-only mode.
Please download a browser that supports JavaScript, or enable it if it's disabled (i.e. NoScript).
Originally posted by BackSTABa: You really are being stupid Mikee. Do some research. The WHOLE SCHEME OF THE IMAC WAS STEVE'S. The design lab outside of Apples headquarters kept the actual design of the iMac under tight security until its release, but the idea of an all-in-one 2 steps to set up cheap and easy to use computer was what Apple lacked and Steve wanted to bring back. I dont care what you think about Steve, have you own opinion, dont bother trying to force it upon others. I simply don't care enough to continue this little quarrel with you.
-LOL! Apple had an all in one computer way back in the early 80's. The first "modern" all-in-one Macs were school computers. I'll admit, Steve's main ideas were color and roundness. He once took a team of designers outside and pointed out how the city was round were it 'should' be edged. Such as street corners, cars...etc. "I am really proud of the team that came up with this (iMac)." -Steve Jobs. Jobs didn't even invent the DESIGN. I have serious problems with a man that started fights with employees back when he worked with Apple. With NeXT he stopped the physical abuse and just publically humiliated his employees. He'd announce over the NeXT-"compound" intercom how someone screwed up, was incompetitant...etc.
Secondly, the First Macintosh, Apple, the name doesn't matter was built in a wooden frame using essential parts Woz DID get from his father, but Jobs did help. Or are you saying that Woz was a moron, Steve did nothing, and founded the company with Woz by accident?
-----Umm, the Apple, Apple )( (and the various types) the Apple /// and the Lisa and Lisa II are all the main computers between the Apple and Macintosh. It is not "the name doesn't matter". That's like saying, "Pentium, 286... whatever". I did not call Woz a moron. In fact, I think he is a great guy, what he cared about was sharing knowledge and getting people into computers, not profits like Steve. Woz and Steve were friends. Steve just help turn Woz's underground computer into something to sell (against IBM, hence "Think different", HAL...etc).
Thirdly, computer stock you are talking about is simply web-based companies you fool. Amazon.com, iGrocery, those companies have inflated stock. Maybe you should listen to Marketplace on NPR more. Companies like Compaq, IBM, Dell and yes, Apple are solid investment stocks right now. In fact, Dell has reported strong earnings while Compaq has had a slight shake-up. Apple has been voted a good stock choice by many leading investment firms. But hey, what do they know?
-------Fool? Boy, you are using insults..... anyways, I was referring to technology stocks. Which includes computer manufacturers and ISPs...etc.
Last off, recent speed tests show that a 1000mhz Athalon is only .0024 seconds faster than a 500mhz G4 using most graphic programs and games (Ya little Quaker you), and i doubt your dualer is half price, but hey.
-----Most certainly is. What you are looking at is Apple propaganda using optimized Photoshop tests. Look at independent tests NOT using Photoshop. Heck, even independent Photoshop tests showed that the G4 was sometimes faster. Show me independent stats on stuff like data, networking and GAMES. How much is a 500 MHz G4 processor? I can buy a 500 MHz Athlon for $42.
And a bottom of the line G4 isn't just for professionals. It CAN BE, more so than the iMac, but any user that wants expandability isn't going to say, "oh, Apple doesn't sell a consumer product for me! Better get a PC!" They will say, hmmm, an iMac costs roughly $1,300, a G4 with a 17" monitor can be found for around $1,800. Price difference is $500, hardly something that only professionals and major corporations can afford.
----Stevie puts the G3/G4 in the "professional" category. If you want to argue this take it up with him, not me.
You are making Apple into a god like company yourself. Every press release and statement they make, you consider to be either black or white. There are grey areas in all their releases, and you don't need to analyze every word. HAL was in one commercial btw,....
---LOL! How clueless. HAL has been used by Apple for years. Do you even get the JOKE behind HAL?
...but hey, call it a mascot if you want. Just because their press release says one thing, doesn't mean you have to stand by it tooth and nail. Why don't you use your imagination. "Oh, if Apple says its professional, then how can it be a consumer!". I don't know, but you seem to, so please, help this obviously completely unaware Mac user out. Shed some light into this forum.
Anyway, this whole post was ment to be opinions and thoughts on OS X. Considering you know nothing ABOUT OS X, why are you bothering to take people down this stupid side route?
---But andrew says OS X is only in DP4 and all opinions are invalid because of this
------------------ tear it down / AIM: G2uidehatr
(This message has been edited by Soviet mikee (edited 05-30-2000).)
Soviet Mikee:
You want something about data, you got something about data:
Using SETI@home (the data crunching screen saver that allows your computer (multiple platforms) to analyze the data and send it back), in 48 hours, a G4 processed 8 work units plus a little bit.... a GHz PC only processed 5 work units plus a little bit. Happy now?
And on to people complaining about the "fruity" interface: give me a break! I say it's high time that we get out of this Apple Platinum and that UGLY UGLY UGLY :mad: brushed metal of Quicktime and Sherlock II.... and you know what, it looks good? But hey, if you guys like that ugly brushed metal, I'm sure you guys can find time to make a theme....
One thing also that should be clarified is that extensions like .app are not required on HFS+ drives.... I've heard some people complain about it (not here), but I just thought I'd mention it.
Also, I'd like to add that many of the people who have posted here are right.... the G4 is a consumer product AS WELL AS a professional product.... and if you want to invest $500 in a PC with crappy sound and graphics, go ahead.... the price for a Mac and a PC is about the same when you get everything up to par on the mac -- graphics, sound, the works. But if you're so stringent on money, go for the PC.... it's not me who's using it.
And about not liking the all-in-one design and color: resisting progress again? What happened after Apple came out with the iMac? Accessories for the iMac came out in colors, accessories for OTHER computers came out in colors, other copycat companies churned out colored computers, and even little products like pens, and even CHAIRS (I saw this the other day at office depot... i must admit it's going a little far) came out in translucent colors like the iMac.... what's wrong with a little color in your life? Go paint your Mac if you really hate the nice looking colors.
And if I have seemed to insult anybody about this topic, I really didn't mean to.. I'm just really excited about MacOS X and everything Apple has been churning out lately, and I really love Macs.
Quote
Originally posted by sim9.0: (B)the price for a Mac and a PC is about the same when you get everything up to par on the mac -- graphics, sound, the works.(B)
You are incorrect, good sir. We're currently building PCs in school, and I can verify that the price is much less than a Mac with the same specs.
However, the specs mean less to me than to the average PC person. (Still very important, but less so.) I'm concerned about what my work efficiency will we when using the computer. I have found that on Macs, and in the Mac OS, every little detail is generally crafted in such a way as to benefit the user. Not so with PCs and Windows.
More importantly, Macs become obsolete much slower than PCs; how's that for a price concern? I fell that I've gotten much more out of my Performa 637 in the past 5 years than I can get out of my current Dell, ever. For example, I am currently planning to install Linux on the Mac, and run a telnet/ftp/http server off it. (Silly, but possible :)) I gaurantee that in 5 years the PC will be much too ld and obsolete for any such endeavor.
------------------ God. Root. What is difference? -Pitr
AIM: obormot345
Originally posted by sim9.0: And about not liking the all-in-one design and color: resisting progress again? What happened after Apple came out with the iMac? Accessories for the iMac came out in colors, accessories for OTHER computers came out in colors, other copycat companies churned out colored computers, and even little products like pens, and even CHAIRS (I saw this the other day at office depot... i must admit it's going a little far) came out in translucent colors like the iMac.... what's wrong with a little color in your life? Go paint your Mac if you really hate the nice looking colors. :D(/B)
I like the colors! I would have preferred to buy a blue G3 - really nice design. I don't like the grey front of the iMac, and I don't like the idea of all-in-one: difficult to update the hardware - and you have all the noise and stuff directly in front of your brain. I don't think that this is "resisting progress"...
And to Obormot: I tried to find a linux-version for my PB 1400 - but I think, no one has ever made one. And with a maximum of 48 MB RAM it's difficult to run any system above 8.1 - and the harddisc-recording-program I mentioned needs 8.6. So the lifetime of this PB was not so exciting... (but I still use my old PB 145 - needless to say that I love macs and, by the way, EV/O!)
(This message has been edited by mmaaxx (edited 05-31-2000).)
Originally posted by mmaaxx: And to Obormot: I tried to find a linux-version for my PB 1400 - but I think, no one has ever made one.(This message has been edited by mmaaxx (edited 05-31-2000).)
No way. Come on: Linux PPC, Debian, you can even use BSD. Doesn't Yellow Dog also make a Mac Linux distribution?
Originally posted by Obormot: **No way. Come on: Linux PPC, Debian, you can even use BSD. Doesn't Yellow Dog also make a Mac Linux distribution? **
No, it's not that easy - if the linux people on their homepages are right. There are a lot of linux versions for macs - but which one you can use depends on the exact processor you have - and I've found no version for the 603 PPC (I think, it was the 603 in my PB 1400...)
------------------
Originally posted by mmaaxx: **No, it's not that easy - if the linux people on their homepages are right. There are a lot of linux versions for macs - but which one you can use depends on the exact processor you have - and I've found no version for the 603 PPC (I think, it was the 603 in my PB 1400...) **
Linux PPC can run on any PowerPC processor, from the 601 to the G4. Most other distributions have similar setups. Really. I just consulted a bunch of local Linux experts, and they agree.
Originally posted by Obormot: **Linux PPC can run on any PowerPC processor, from the 601 to the G4. Most other distributions have similar setups. Really. I just consulted a bunch of local Linux experts, and they agree. **
Strange. I've checked the Linux PPC web page yesterday, and they've got a long list of compatible machines. Yes, there are compatible PBs, even PB 2400c and PB 3400c are listed - but, like on every other linux page I know, the PB 1400c is not listed. Usually it's expressively excluded from the list of compatible machines. I don't know the exact cause, that's right - perhaps it's not only the processor but other strange features of the PB 1400c (it's also the only mac I know where you have to press a really absurd combination on the keyboard to boot from CD...)
*** sorry to the other people because of this very special discussion - perhaps we should write private emails on this topic... ***
Originally posted by mmaaxx: **Strange. I've checked the Linux PPC web page yesterday, and they've got a long list of compatible machines. Yes, there are compatible PBs, even PB 2400c and PB 3400c are listed - but, like on every other linux page I know, the PB 1400c is not listed. Usually it's expressively excluded from the list of compatible machines. I don't know the exact cause, that's right - perhaps it's not only the processor but other strange features of the PB 1400c (it's also the only mac I know where you have to press a really absurd combination on the keyboard to boot from CD...)
**
Hmm. I'll consult the Linux people on this one.
I have been curious about this question and have never really gotten a straight answer, so here goes:
Can Linux/BSD/Unix programs be made to mount on the desktop or somewhere in the Finder?
------------------ From Left Hand Phoenix of the AWL (url="http://"http://www.awl.cjb.net/")http://www.awl.cjb.net/(/url) Halo, Homeworld, and Diablo II.
From what I've read, Apple is listening. I think we need to hold off on what will and will not be present until something ships (like the Beta version this summer). They've already changed the desktop. Also, I remember something about using XML to effect the way a file behaves. I didn't really understand how it works because I am not a programmer, but it seems similar to the resource fork to me. Maybe someone else knows more. Just don't give up hope until something ships wrapped in plastic.
As far as I recall, the only 603/603e based machines that are supported under LinuxPPC are PCI based.
Uh... obomormot... the Mac and the PC with the same specs cost about the same....
If you consider that a Mac's processor can do much much more than a PC processor (a 500 MHz PC processor IS NOT NEARLY AS GOOD AS a 500 MHz PC processor, especially a G4 processor).
Then when you consider the sound and graphics, and a good system like the MacOS (even though you may not be able to buy one for the PC), and the software (like the stuff bundled with the iMac) the cost is about the same.
Originally posted by sim9.0: **Uh... obomormot... the Mac and the PC with the same specs cost about the same....
533 MHz PC with ---software bundle -Windows 98 SE, MS Office (better than AppleWorks) and games(including 3D ones) --- 20 GB HD --- Voodoo 2 graphics card (16 MB RAM) <--Better than the iMac graphics card --- 64 MB RAM --- Internet Keyboard and Scroll mouse
for :Drum Roll: ----- $383 (I saw and Athlon like that for that much) to $500
Cost of a 400 MHz G4 $1600
Yea, more than 3 times more for a 400 MHz G4.... that's about the same - if your BILL GATES =P
And that "PC processor is not nearly as good as a G4" Prove it. NOT using and specs from Apple... I am talking independent, not biased tests using a variety of tests.
"If you consider that a Mac's processor can do much much more than a PC processor" - Except play some of the best games on the market =P
(This message has been edited by Soviet mikee (edited 06-03-2000).)
Originally posted by Soviet mikee: ** And that "PC processor is not nearly as good as a G4" Prove it. NOT using and specs from Apple... I am talking independent, not biased tests using a variety of tests. **
Dang! I had found a comparison between a 450mhz G4 and some AMD and Intel processors before! I just don't know where it is now! DAMN! If you want, I'll try to find it!
(From what I remember, the AMD's and Intel's were both 700 or 800 mhz. The G4 beat the Intel, but not the AMD. If I find the article, I'll give a link.)
Originally posted by Soviet mikee: **533 MHz PC with ---software bundle -Windows 98 SE, MS Office (better than AppleWorks) and games(including 3D ones) --- 20 GB HD --- Voodoo 2 graphics card (16 MB RAM) <--Better than the iMac graphics card --- 64 MB RAM --- Internet Keyboard and Scroll mouse
Mikee is entirely correct. Of course, I'd like to state for the record that AppleWorks 6 is better than Office 2000, mainly because I don't like programs that can shapeshift at will... Also, I would personally chuck Windows and get something like Corel Linux (about same price, maybe a bit cheaper, and it comes with WordPerfect for Linux).
But Mikee, did you forget stuff like CD-ROM/DVD-ROM, network card? Add another... say... hundred dollars.
Still much cheaper, though.
Oops, I forgot, it included a 56k modem and 52x CD-ROM.